TheAgitator.com
Far From Recommendable.
Saturday, December 14th, 2002I saw the movie “Far From Heaven” last night. I was overruled on my first choice for the evening, “Standing in the Shadows of Motown,” largely because of the rave reviews “Far From Heaven” has been getting.
It was wretched.
First, the good points:
Julianne Moore did as much as she could with the paper-thin character she was handed. The movie is lit in warm color. And Dennis Haysbert does an admirable job as Raymond Deagan.
Everything else was completely predictable, shallow and preachy. The movie is basically a two-hour lambaste of Hollywood’s favorite whipping boy, the 1950s. Only it’s not nearly as interesting or funny or original as, say, “Pleasantville,” though the themes are largely the same.
The movie is as 1950s cliche as it can possibly get. Dialogue is peppered with “gollys” and “shucks” and “gee-whizes.” Moore strikes a matronly pose — arm on the mantle, looking downward — for the Hartford society pages’ profile of the model “woman about town” — a wife of a successful sales executive, mother of two kids, and arts patron who “even has time to lend a hand to the negro.”
Yawn.
The Hartford townsfolk are terribly racist, bigoted and close-minded. Moore meets and befriends Haysbert, a noble black man who is tall and proud and wise and sweet and funny and utterly and completely without a flaw. Julianne Moore must must then choose between the social mores she knows to be wicked and her friendship with a man whose heart is pure.
Yawn.
The twist is that Moore’s husband in the movie — played by Dennis Quaid — is himself a bigot, but also a closeted homosexual. Quaid’s been getting high praise for the role. I thought he was trying way too hard.
Quaid’s character excoriates his wife for having been seen about town with a black man, saying “this could ruin my professional reputation,” while, at the same time, he himself is carrying on with a lad half his age.
See, this is irony and stuff. Marvel here at how the writers have juxtaposed Quaid’s bigotry with his homosexuality. Marvelous.
We’re then to all laugh and chuckle at the small-minded psychotherapist who tells Quaid that with “treatment,” he might be cured of gayness. How small minded of him! He’s like Jerry Falwell, only in 1958! Silly psychotherapist!
Yawn.
Also, I guess I’m supposed to say something like “the writers earn points for showing not just white 1950s prejudice, but black prejudice too, as the character played by Haysbert is outcast from his own community after bringing a white woman into “the neighborhood.”"
How novel.
Yawn.
Come on. It’s 2002. Outside the office of the Senate Majority Leader, do we really need a condescending, two-hour movie letting us know there was lots of small-town racism in the 1950s, and homophobia too, and that we should all work together to overcome it?
What a waste.
Next time, it’s Motown.
Radley wrote:
“The movie is as 1950s cliche as it can possibly get. Dialogue is peppered with “gollys” and “shucks” and “gee-whizes.” Moore strikes a matronly pose — arm on the mantle, looking downward — for the Hartford society pages’ profile of the model “woman about town” — a wife of a successful sales executive, mother of two kids, and arts patron who “even has time to lend a hand to the negro.”
I haven’t seen the film yet Radley, but the reviews I read suggested that this is exactly the point. It was specifically made to exactly echo the cheezy, corny stereotype of the 1950s (I think a couple of specific 1950s films were lifted from, but I don’t know their names) but to do so while covering a modern topic that would never have been touched back then. Sort of like an absolutely earnest ‘Leave it to Beaver’ episode about being a crack whore.
Like I said, I haven’t seen the movie yet myself, but I my understanding is that this particular criticism is, as they say, not a bug, but a feature.
Rufus, you are correct. Hayne’s film is an homage to the likes of Douglas Sirk melodramas such as Imitation of Life and All That Heaven Allows.
Melodramas, as you may be aware, are not always subtle with their points; in fact, they are rife with archetypal characters (who are usually suffering or are conflicted, epescially in the conetxt of society), heightened dramatic situations, and a strong connection between the visual and the narrative. I suspect these are characteristics which are off-putting to contemporary audiences.
I found Far From Heaven to be flushed with as much feeling as color. And in breaking with the 50′s style of rather stilted performances, Haynes’ camera work, not to mention the talents of the actors, reveal a much more passionate, empathetic emotional environment, even with the imposed 50′s mannerisms. And as much as I love Julianne Moore, Dennis Quaid’s anguished performance felt like an anvil on my chest.
If one could make parallels between an “outdated” society and a more modern one with psychological alienation, and one not without its own forms of repression, then Haynes has exactly done his job. He’s not trying to mock the time period, nor is he trying to be subtle with overt topics.
RB — must disagree with you. While I found the film to be a bit overwrought, it was a technical marvel. My first comment after seeing it was, “My, was that consistent or what?” Also, how you can call Julianne Moore’s character one-dimensional is beyond me. And for Haynes to make a gay character be an asshole sort of offset the “50s were bad” silliness that is taking Hollywood by storm these days. Hey, it was at least more complex than American Beauty — though, essentially, covering the same themes (substitute 1950s for suburbia).
I hated this fucking movie.